93 CAWASA V.

COMELEC
Cawasa and Manamparan were among the candidates for mayor in the Municipality of Nunungan, Lanao Del
Norte. Only 36/40 precincts functioned, as there was a failure of election in the remaining four (4) precincts.
Proclamation was deferred. After the special election, Cawasa was proclaimed Mayor. Manamparan filed
petition for the annulment of the proclamation. Comelec en banc annulled the results of the special elections
of the 4 precincts.
The result of the special election was NOT valid, as such election was not genuinely held and resulted in
failure to elect on account of fraud. Here, the Comelec found that the special elections were vitiated by fraud
due to the illegal transfer of the polling places and the appointment of military personnel as members of the
BEI. Inevitably, the Comelec could not ascertain who voted during the special elections.

94 SARDEA V. COMELEC
While the canvassing of the election returns was going on, some sympathizers of Sardea, a defeated
mayoralty candidate of LAKAS-NUCD, stormed the municipal building and destroyed all election materials
and paraphernalia. Municipal Board of Canvassers discovered that the election returns in the possession of
the MTC Judge of Mauban were intact, so it ordered the retrieval of said election returns for use in the
canvass. It continued the canvassing of the election returns based on the copies from the MTC of Mauban.
Board proclaimed respondents as winners.
COMELEC correctly issued a resolution denying the petition to declare a failure of election. The destruction
and loss of the copies of the election returns intended for the Municipal Board of Canvassers on account of
violence is not one of the causes that would warrant the declaration of a failure of election. The power to
throw out or annul an election should be exercised with the utmost care. There is a failure of elections only
when the will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained. If the will of the people is
determinable, the same must as far as possible be respected.

95 SARDEA V. COMELEC
Petitioners, allegedly bona-fide residents and voters of Mauban, Quezon, assail the Resolution promulgated
by COMELEC denying their petition to Declare a Failure of Election in Mauban, Quezon against the COMELEC,
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Mauban, Quezon, and the private respondents who were proclaimed
the duly elected Mayor, Vice Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mauban, Quezon.
There is NO substantial ground to declare a failure of election in Mauban, Quezon. The election is to be set
aside when it is impossible from any evidence within reach, to ascertain the true result - when neither
from the returns nor from other proof, nor from all together can the truth be determined. There is a failure
of elections only when the will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained. If the will of
the people is determinable, the same must as far as possible be respected. Copies of the election returns
submitted to the MTC of Mauban, Quezon were extant, and their authenticity was not questioned, they
were properly used as basis for the canvass. This is expressly authorized by Section 233 of the OEC which
provides that "if said returns have been lost or destroyed, the board of canvassers, upon prior authority of
the Commission, may use any of the authentic copies of said election returns or a certified copy of said
election returns issued by the Commission"

96 Hassan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 124089

There was a failure of elections in 6 out of 24 precincts in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur due to terrorism. A special
election was held which resulted to the election of private responded Mangondaya Hassan as Vice-Mayor of
Madalum. Petitioner Nor Hassan, who also ran for the said petition, filed a petition assailing the validity of
the special election due to various irregularities which were declared by the COMELEC as invalid grounds.
There was a failure of election. In the case at bar, the following conditions to constitute a failure of election
were met:
(1) no voting has been held in any precinct/s because of terrorism, and
(2) that the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the election. Furthermore, the court ruled
that terrorism may not justify a failure of elections. However, where the terrorism is prevalent in the area
as to warrant the declaration that no voting actually took place therein, there is a failure of election.
97 Mitmug v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 106270-73
Petitioner, candidate for the mayoralty position of Lumbao-Bayabao, file for the annulment of the special
election alleging various irregularities such as alteration, tampering and substitution of ballots with the
COMELEC. The latter, however, denied the petition on the ground that it was moot since the votes in the
subject precincts were already counted.
There was NO failure of election. There is a failure to elect when the ballot box is snatched, burned or lost.
However the Comelec did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action to declare a failure of election in
49 precincts where less than a quarter of the electorate were able to cast their votes due to terrorism, where
it was not proven that no actual voting took place nor was it shown that even if there was voting, the results
thereon would be tantamount to failure to elect.

98 Banaga v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134696

Upon losing for the office of the vice-mayor of Paranaque, Banaga filed with the COMELEC a petition to
declare failure of election alleging that the election was tainted with anomalies. COMELEC, however,
dismissed the petition because the ground relied upon do not fall under any instance enumerated in Sec. 6
of the Omnibus Election Code.
There was NO failure of elections. While petitioner contends that the election was tainted with widespread
anomalies, it must be noted that to warrant a declaration of failure of election the commission of fraud
must be such that it prevented or suspended the holding of an election, or marred fatally the preparation
and transmission, custody and canvass of the election returns. These essential facts ought to have been
alleged clearly by the petitioner below, but he did not.

99 Typoco v. Comelec, 319 SCRA 498 (1999)

Typoco and Pimentel were both candidates for the position of Governor in Camarines Norte. Pimentel was
proclaimed as the winner. Typoco filed with the Comelec en banc a petition on the ground of massive fraud
and irregularities attended the preparation of the election returns which, upon technical examination of
their authentic copies, were found to have been written by one person. However, Comelec denied.
There was NO failure of elections. While fraud is a ground to declare a failure of election, such fraud must
be one that prevents or suspends the holding of an election, including the preparation transmission of the
election returns. “Failure to elect” must be understood in its literal sense – which is, nobody emerges as a
winner.

100 Macabago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152163, (2002)

Macabago and Salacop were candidates for Municipal Mayor of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur. Petitioner was
proclaimed as the winner. Respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the elections and the
proclamation of candidates on the ground that there was a massive substitution of voters, rampant and
pervasive irregularities in voting procedures. COMELEC concluded that there was convincing proof of
massive fraud in the conduct of the elections in the four (4) precincts.
COMELEC committed GAD. Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the resolution
of which would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which appear to
be prima facie regular, on their face, are anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy. The grounds alleged
by private respondents are those for a regular election protest and are not proper in a pre-proclamation
controversy, nor is such petition one for annulment of the elections or for a declaration of failure of elections.

101 Borja v. Comelec, 260 SCRA 604 (1996)

Borja and Capco vied for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Pateros which was won by Capco. He
was proclaimed and has since been serving as Mayor of Pateros. Borja filed before the COMELEC a petition
to declare a failure of election and to nullify the canvass and proclamation made by the Pateros Board of
Canvassers. The COMELEC en banc dismissed.
COMELEC did not commit GAD. Alleged lack of notice of the date and time of canvass, fraud, violence,
terrorism and analogous cause, disenfranchisement of voters, presence of flying voters, and unqualified
members of the Board of Election Inspectors are proper grounds only in an election contest but not in a
petition to declare a failure of election and to nullify a proclamation.
102 Balindong v. Comelec
Balindong filed in the COMELEC a Petition to Suspend and/or Annul Proclamation of Tanog as the municipal
mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur. He alleged that the polling place in Precinct No. 4 was transferred from
Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Tambo, both in the municipality of Pualas, without prior notice and hearing
thus, preventing his 63 supporters in Lumbac from casting their votes. COMELEC dismissed.
Transfer of polling place would NOT warrant a declaration of failure of election. The mere fact that the
transfer of polling place was not made in accordance with law does not warrant a declaration of failure of
election and the annulment of the proclamation of the winning candidate, unless the number of uncast
votes will affect the result of the election. Although the COMELEC declared the transfer of the polling place
to be illegal, the fact is that only 66, out of 255 registered voters in Precinct No. 4, were not able to vote. The
additional votes would not have materially affected the results of the election (149 votes difference).

103 Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD) v. Comelec

Petitioner sought to restrain the COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections and to declare a failure
of elections on the ground of alleged irregularities in the conduct thereof. Irregularities consisted delay in
the delivery of election forms to the board of inspectors, lack of security measures in protecting election
paraphernalia, barring of watchers from polling places, massive vote-buying, terrorism, selective brown-
outs, “quick count” by the NAMFREL, suspension of the counting of the votes, etc. In all of which acts the
said election body is claimed to have conspired with the private respondents, official candidates of the Lakas
ng Bansa, to frustrate and falsify the will of the electorate.
There is NO failure of elections. The rule is that a substantial percentage of the total votes cast should be
vitiated by the claimed anomalies to sustain the declaration of a failure of election, but this requirement
was not established on a nationwide scale. Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are
proper grounds in an election contest but may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and
to disenfranchise the greater number of the electorate through the misdeeds, precisely, of only a relative
few. Otherwise, elections will never be carried out with the resultant disenfranchisement of the innocent
voters, for the losers will always cry fraud and terrorism.

104 Lucero v. Comelec

Canvass of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Northern Samar for the position of Congressman resulted
to respondent Ong having a lead of 204 votes against petitioner. The tally excluded the results from 3
precincts of Silvino Lobos where the submitted election returns had not been canvassed because they were
illegible, ballot boxes were snatched and no election was held, and all copies of the election returns were
missing. Respondent Ong questioned the authority of COMELEC to call for a special election in Precinct 13
after 1 year and 10 months following the regular election.
The failure of election in one precinct would warrant the holding of special election. A special election may
be held in Precinct No. 13 only if the failure of the election therein “would affect the result of the election.”
This “result of the election” means the net result of the election in the rest of the precincts in a given
constituency. The number of registered voters in Precinct No. 13 is 213. Since the lead of respondent Ong is
less than the number of registered voters, the votes in that precinct could affect the existing result.

105 Mitmug v. Comelec, 230 SCRA 54

The turnout of voters during the 11 May 1992 election in Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, was abnormally
low. As a result, several petitions were filed seeking the declaration of failure of elections. A special election
was conducted by COMLEC in which Mitmug loses against Dagalangit. He opposed the result contending that
there was failure of election.
There was no failure of election due to low turnout of voters. The fact that a verified petition is filed does
not automatically mean that a hearing on the case will be held before COMELEC will act on it. The verified
petition must still show on its face that the conditions to declare a failure to elect are present first, no voting
has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election
nevertheless results in failure to elect; and, second, the votes not cast would affect the result of the election.
In the absence thereof, the petition must be denied outright.
106 Loong v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 1
After the canvass of the election returns of sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) municipalities of Sulu,
respondent Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) recommended to the COMELEC a recanvass of the election
returns of Parang and Talipao. Loong who prayed that the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers
of Talipao, Sulu, be set aside on the ground that the certificates of canvass were manufactured, fictitious and
falsified. Loong prayed that the recanvassing done is void and declare failure of elections specially the one
in Parang Sulu and he and his other co-petitioners be already proclaimed as governor.
COMELEC may conduct technical examination of election documents and compare and analyze voters’
signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free, honest
and clean. While, however, the COMELEC is restricted, in pre-proclamation cases, to an examination of the
election returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate
election irregularities, the COMELEC is duty bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and
other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections.
A preproclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration
of failure of elections.

107 Hassan v. Comelec, 264 SCRA 125

Hassan and Buatan were candidates for vice mayor however a failure of election was declared in Madalum,
Lanao del sur. A special election was conducted. The election occurred 15 kms away from the original
precinct. Buatan won the race while Hassan assailed the validity of the special election. Buatan also filed a
case in which he prayed to be proclaimed as the winner. COMELEC denied the petition for a declaration of
failure of elections.
There was irregularity on the special election hence the petitioner’s action of assailing the validity of the
special election correct. It is essential to the validity of the election that the voters have notice in some form,
either actual or constructive, of the time, place and purpose thereof, and the requirement of notice even
becomes stricter in cases of special elections. In a place marred by violence, it was necessary for the voters
to be given sufficient time to be notified of the changes and prepare themselves for the eventuality.

108 Loong v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 120826, 16 May 1996)

Loong and Tan ran for Governor of Sulu petitioner Tulawie private respondent Estino ran for Vice-Governor.
The Provincial Board of Canvass (PBC) recommended to the COMELEC a re-canvass of the election returns
of Parang and Talipao. The canvass of PBC showed petitioners to have overwhelmingly won in the
municipality of Parang. Private respondents filed with the COMELEC regarding the inclusion of the
questioned certificates of canvass and that there was failure of election in said municipality due to massive
fraud. COMELEC issued an order annulling the results of the election in Parang but dismissed other petitions
for other municipalities where it was alleged that there were also badges of fraud.
COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion when, confronted with essentially similar situations, it takes
cognizance of a petition to annul the election results in one municipality yet dismisses a petition to annul
election results in other municipalities. The untimeliness of the petition is an untenable argument for such
dismissal because the law does not provide for a reglementary period in filing a petition for annulment of
elections as long as there has been no proclamation yet. Since there is no reglementary period to file a
petition for annulment of elections before proclamation, there is no legal impediment to the examination
of pertinent election documents to determine whether or not the elections should be annulled. It was
grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC to annul an election without conducting a special election.

109 Banaga v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 134696, 31 July 2000)

Banaga, Jr. and Bernabe, Jr. were both candidates for vice-mayor of Parañaque City. City Board of Canvassers
proclaimed Bernabe as winner. Dissatisfied with results, petitioner filed with the COMELEC, a petition to
Declare Failure of Elections alleging that said election was replete with election offenses, such as vote buying
and flying voters. He also alleged that numerous election returns pertaining to the position of vice-mayor
appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated. COMELEC dismissed.
There was NO failure of elections. While petitioner contends that the election was tainted with widespread
anomalies, it must be noted that to warrant a declaration of failure of election the commission of fraud must
be such that it prevented or suspended the holding of an election, or marred fatally the preparation and
transmission, custody and canvass of the election returns. There is no law which provides for a reglementary
period to file annulment of elections when there is yet no proclamation.
110 Borja v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 120140, 21 August 1996)
Borja and Capco vied for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Pateros which was won by Capco.
Alleging lack of notice of the date and time of canvass, fraud, violence, terrorism and analogous causes, such
as disenfranchisement of voters, presence of flying voters, and unqualified members of the Board of Election
Inspectors, Borja filed before the COMELEC a petition to declare a failure of election and to nullify the canvass
and proclamation made by the Pateros Board of Canvassers. COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition.
COMELEC is correct in dismissing petitioner’s case. The grounds are proper only in an election contest but
not in a petition to declare a failure of election and to nullify a proclamation. Section 6 of the Omnibus
Election Code lays down the instances when a failure of election may be declared. In reality, Borja’s petition
was nothing but a simple election protest involving an elective municipal position which falls within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the appropriate RTC. Borja cannot claim that he was denied due process
because when the COMELEC en banc reviewed and evaluated his petition, the same was tantamount to a
fair “hearing” of his case.

111 Mitmug v. Comelec 230 SCRA 54

Mitmug and Dagalangit were among the candidates for mayor of Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur. Voter
turnout was rather low, particularly in forty-nine (49) precincts. Five (5) of these precincts did not conduct
actual voting at all. COMELEC ordered the holding of a special election. Mitmug filed a petition seeking the
annulment of the special election alleging various irregularities such as the alteration, tampering and
substitution of ballots. COMELEC considered the petition moot since the votes in the subject precincts were
already counted. Datu Dagalangit was proclaimed the duly elected Mayor.
There was NO failure of election. The clear intent of the law is that a petition to declare a failure of election
must be acted upon with dispatch only after hearing thereon shall have been conducted. Since COMELEC
denied the other petitions which sought to include 43 more precincts in a special election without
conducting any hearing, it would appear then that there indeed might have been grave abuse of discretion
in denying the petitions. However, the Comelec could dismiss outright a petition for nullification of election
if it is plainly groundless and the allegation therein could be better ventilated in an election protest.

112 Typoco v. Comelec 319 SCRA 498

Typoco and Pimentel were both candidates for the position of Governor in Camarines Norte. Petitioner
Typoco buttressed his petition with independent evidence that compelled the Comelec to conduct a
technical examination of the questioned returns. TYPOCO filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to Prove That
a Substantial Number of Election Returns Were Manufactured as They Were Prepared by One Person
based on the report of one Francisco S. Cruz, a Licensed Examiner of Questioned Document, who examined
copies of election returns of the LAKAS-NUCD. TYPOCO filed with the COMELEC En Banc a separate petition
for Declaration of Failure of Elections considering that upon technical examination, 305 election returns were
found to have been prepared in group by one person.
There was NO failure of election. There are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be
declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of
the voting
(c) such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes.
None of these circumstances is present in the case at bar.

113 Pasandalan v. Comelec GR 150312

Pasandalan and Asum were candidates for mayor in the Municipality of Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur.
Pasandalan filed a petition before COMELEC seeking to nullify the election results in certain Barangays
alleging that while voting was going on, some Cafgus indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the voters
to panic and leave the polling center without casting their votes. Pasandalan alleges fraud and terrorism.
There was NO failure of election. It is not enough that a verified petition is filed. The allegations in the petition
must make out a prima facie case for the declaration of failure of election, and convincing evidence must
substantiate the allegations. It is apparent that the allegations do not constitute sufficient grounds for the
nullification of the election. Pasandalan even failed to substantiate his/her allegations of terrorism and
irregularities. His/her evidence consisted only of affidavits. Mere affidavits are insufficient, more so in this
case since the affidavits were all executed by Pasandalan’s own poll watchers.
114 Banaga Jr. v Comelec 336 SCRA 701
Banaga, Jr. and Bernabe, Jr. were both candidates for vice-mayor of the City of Parañaque wherein
respondent Bernabe was declared as the winner. Petitioner filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Declare
Failure of Elections and/or For Annulment of Elections, alleging that said election was replete with election
offenses, such as vote buying and flying voters. He also alleged that numerous Election Returns pertaining
to the position of Vice-Mayor in the City of Parañaque appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated.
Respondent COMELEC dismissed petitioner’s suit and held that the election offenses relied upon by
petitioner do not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
There was NO failure of election. In the case of Loong vs COMELEC, the SC ruled that COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition as there is no law which provides for a reglementary
period to file annulment of elections when there is yet no proclamation. The election resulted in a failure
to elect on account of fraud, thus the SC ordered the COMELEC to reinstate the aforesaid petition. Those
circumstances, however, are not present in this case, so that reliance on Loong by petitioner Banaga is
misplaced. Petitioner’s action is a petition to declare a failure of elections or annul election results. It is not
an election protest.

115 Pasandalan vs Comelec GR 150312

Pasandalan and Asum were candidates for mayor in the municipality of Lumbayanague, Lanao del sur.
Pasandalan filed for nullification of election results in certain barangays on the ground that, (1) while the
election was ongoing, some Cafgu’s stationed near the schools indiscriminately fired their firearms causing
the voters to panic and leave the voting centers without casting their votes, (2) failure to sign of BEIs to sign
their initials on certain ballots and (3) taking advantage of the fist fights, the supporters of Asum took the
ballots and filled them up with the name of Asum. COMELEC gave no credence to the allegations of
Pasandalan and dismissed the petition. The evidence presented by Pasandalan were only affidavits made by
his own pollwatchers, thus considered as self-serving and insufficient to annul the results. Hence this
petition.
There was NO failure of election. Comelec correctly dismissed the petition for declaration of failure of
election because the irregularities alleged in the petition should have been raised in an election protest, not
in a petition to declare a failure of election. The Comelec is not mandated to conduct a technical
examination before it dismisses a petition for nullification of election when the petition is, on its face,
without merit. Pasandalan failed to attach independent and objective evidence other than the self-serving
affidavits of his own poll watchers.